Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/26/2022

Jatinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh BB Sharma

20 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   Complaint No. 26 of 2022

                                                                   Date of Institution: 30.03.2022

                                                                   Date of Decision: 20.05.2022

 

Jatinder Kumar aged about 53 years S/o Sh. Som Nath S/o of Sh. Kartar Dass R/o Village Harbanspura, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.  

                                                                                                                 …………....Complainant(s)

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.  
2. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sirhind, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. X.E.N., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sirhind, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
4. Sudesh Rani W/o Sh. Ramji Dass,
5. Sumit Kumar S/o Ramji Dass,
6. Sandeep Kumar S/o Ramji Dass,
7. Ramji Dass S/o Sh. Kartar Dass, all residents of Village Harbanspura, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

   …………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under Section 11 to14 of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

 

Present: Sh.B.B.Sharma, counsel for Complainant.

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, counsel for OP Nos.1 to 3.

              Sh. Sanjeev Chopra, counsel for OP Nos.4 and 7.

    Sh. Yadwinder Singh, counsel for OP Nos.5 and 6.

 

Order by

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                  The present complaint has been filed by the Jatinder Kumar/complainant(hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with a prayer to direct the OPs to install electric connection in the quarters situated at Village Harbanspura, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
2.                 The complainant has alleged that the OP Nos.4 to 7 raised objection for installing the electric connection in the quarters of CC. He has also alleged that on 28.04.2019 a written compromise took place between the CC and OP No.7(husband of OP No.4 and father of OP Nos.5 and 6) and in the said compromise 12 quarters came into the share of CC and 12 quarters came into the share of OP No.7. At that time, the OP No.7 also took responsibility of his legal heirs. He has also alleged that he there was an amount of Rs.32308/- due against the previous electric connection which was running in the name of Tulsa Devi grandmother of CC and mother of OP No.7 and the CC deposited ½ share of the abovesaid amount i.e. Rs.16150/- with the OP Nos.1 to 3. But the OP Nos.4 to 7 did not deposit the amount of their share and raised false objection.
3.                  The OP Nos.1 to 3 came present and alleged in their reply stating that the CC has applied for a new electric connection in commercial category and when OP Nos.1 to 3 sent the officials for verification then it came to the knowledge that there is defaulting amount outstanding against the property where the new electric connection is proposed to be installed and there is a domestic dispute regarding property where electric connection has been applied. After that OP No.4 to 7 filed objections regarding the dispute of over the property and a legal notice was also received by OP Nos.1 to 3 for not installing the electric connection.
4.                The OP Nos.4 to 7 have alleged in their separate written reply that there is a complicated question of fact and law in the present complaint, so this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Since the property is joint and as such the consent of other co-sharers is necessary which is not obtained by the CC. The OPs have denied the compromise/family partition and have prayed to dismiss the present complaint along with the application.
5.                 We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the file.  
6.                 The CC has filed an application for directing the OP Nos.1 to 3 to install electric connection in favour of CC in his quarters and in the present complaint the same relief  has also been claimed. The CC has alleged that the OP Nos.4 to 7 are wrongly claiming property as joint property, in fact a written compromise had taken place between the CC and OP No.7 (husband of OP No.4 and father of OP Nos.5 and 6) and in the said compromise 12 quarters came into share of CC and 12 quarters came into share of OP No.7. The OP No.7 also took responsibility of his legal heirs.
7.                On the other hand the OP Nos.4 to 7 have alleged that there is no compromise dated 28.04.2019 between CC and OP Nos.4 to 7 as the same has never been taken place and they have alleged that in case there is any compromise/family partition then the same is forged and fabricated document and is inoperative, ineffective, illegal null and void. The property in which the electric meter is applied is joint between the parties as such this Commission has got no jurisdiction to pass any order in the present complaint for installing the electric connection. The copies of Jamabandi has been produced on the file which shows the property in dispute as joint between the CC and OP Nos.4 to 7.
8.                 The CC has alleged that there was a compromise and family partition dated 28.04.2019 between the CC and OP Nos.4 to 7, but the OP Nos.4 to 7 have denied the said compromise. In fact the same is not signed by OP Nos.4 to 7 who were co-sharers in the property. The OP Nos.4 to 7 have also alleged that in case there is any compromise/family partition then the same is forged and fabricated document and is illegal null and void.
9.                    So in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that in fact there is a dispute between the CC and OP Nos.4 to 7 regarding partition of the property where the CC wants to get the electric connection to be installed in his quarters and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter of partition of the property which is joint between the CC and OP Nos.4 to 7. So far as the installation of electric connection is concerned there is outstanding amount of Rs.16,150/- against the previous electric connection installed in the joint property and all co-sharers are also not agree for installation of the electric connection in the name of the CC. Hence, no such direction can be issued to the OP Nos.1 to 3 to install the electric connection in the name of CC in his quarters as stated by the CC.
10.                         In view of our aforesaid discussion the application for giving directions to the OP Nos.1 to 3 to install the electric connection in favour of CC in his quarters as prayed is hereby dismissed. In the main complaint also the same relief has been claimed but as there is a dispute regarding partition of the joint property between CC and OP Nos.4 to 7 and the compromise/family partition dated 28.04.2019 which has been relied upon by the CC is a disputed document and the OP Nos.4 to 7 have alleged the same is forged and fabricated document. So this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. As such the complaint is also dismissed with liberty to the CC to approach the proper Court having jurisdiction.  Certified copy of the order be supplied to the CC and the OPs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
11.  
12.  

                                                                            

                           (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                          President                

     (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

        Member

 

   (Shivani Bhargava)

                  Member